GR 225895; (September, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 225895 . September 28, 2022.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. ROSELLE C. ANNANG, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Respondent Roselle C. Annang was engaged by Cagayan State University (CSU) as a part-time faculty member from June 2005 to December 2007 through a series of six-month contracts of service. These contracts explicitly stipulated that no employer-employee relationship existed, the service would not be credited as government service, and the engagement was not subject to civil service laws. Subsequently, Annang was appointed to a permanent position as Assistant Professor III and retired in 2012. In 2013, after her retirement, she requested the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to accredit her prior 2.5 years of part-time service to complete the 15-year service requirement for full benefits under Republic Act No. 8291 (GSIS Act). The CSC denied her request, citing a memorandum circular that services under contracts of service are not government service. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC, applying the four-fold test to find an employer-employee relationship and ruling the service should be credited.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the Civil Service Commission’s denial of Annang’s request for accreditation of her part-time service?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the CSC’s decision. The ruling is anchored on two primary legal grounds. First, under Section 100, Rule 21 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, a retired official or employee is expressly prohibited from requesting accreditation of service. Annang filed her request in 2013, after her 2012 retirement, thus her petition was procedurally infirm from the outset. Second, the Court clarified that the determination of an employer-employee relationship for government personnel is governed not by the common-law four-fold test used in labor cases, but by special civil service laws, rules, and regulations. The Court has abandoned the precedent (Lopez v. MWSS) relied upon by the CA. Pertinent CSC issuances define a “contract of service” as one where no employer-employee relationship exists and where services rendered are not considered government service. The contracts between CSU and Annang clearly fell under this category, as they expressly disavowed such a relationship and any entitlement to service credit. The stipulations in the contracts are binding. Therefore, the CSC correctly denied the accreditation.